You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven)

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.254 replies, Sticky
Total War Heaven » Forums » Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven) » Empire: Total War Discussion thread
Bottom
Topic Subject:Empire: Total War Discussion thread
« Previous Page  1 ··· 8 9 10 11  Next Page »
Mechstra
Banned
posted 22 August 2007 06:13 EDT (US)         
Empire: Total War is marching slowly towards us!



Relevant links:

The official site
Preview article on land combat at Gamespot
Another land combat preview at IGN
Total War Heaven Youtube channel - featuring some trailers


FAQ

1. Do we have a release date?
The game is currently scheduled to be out in February 2009.

2. How many factions will there be?
There will be 12 playable factions, all playable from the start. Currently confirmed factions are Britain, Prussia, France, Spain, America, Austria, the Dutch Republic and the Ottoman Empire. References to Peter the Great and Charles XII mean that Russia and Sweden are likely candidates as well. A CA developer has said:
We have over 50 factions in the game, and we can't create all of them in the full detail they deserve. Therefore we limit the number of playable factions, but we can't say which ones are playable just yet, simply because we haven't made a final decision. Rest assured though that all major factions (even the non-playable ones) will be represented in high detail.
3. Do we know system requirements? Will the game require Vista?
There are no released system requirements yet, but the game will run with DirectX 9.0, so Vista will not be a minimum requirement for the game. DX10 support is likely but not needed.

4. What period will the game cover?
Empire: Total War will cover the 18th century and the early 19th century.

5. What will the campaign map be?
The latest information suggests that it will include Europe, North and South America, North Africa, Central Asia, India, and Indonesia.

[This message has been edited by Kor (edited 08-27-2008 @ 05:52 AM).]

AuthorReplies:
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 15 November 2008 20:59 EDT (US)     226 / 254       
They should just have the whole world map.. Everything will fit in perfectly if they do.
jomas
Legionary
posted 19 November 2008 15:13 EDT (US)     227 / 254       
i just thought of a odd idea
Naploean could be considered something like the timurids.
around 1790 a large army is formed in france and starts clobbering other nations
or it could be a revolution choice for france, keep old france with better economy, or go with napoleans massive army, and smaller economy

so it could be like a final push to get the campaign achievements
Ibuprofen Redux
Legionary
posted 19 November 2008 18:13 EDT (US)     228 / 254       
Speaking of achievements, didn't I read somewhere that the game will use the Steam achievements system? If this is the case, any speculation about what sort of thing we'll get?

I'm sure there will be like "complete phase 1 of Road to Independence," etc. But what about cool ones, like some of the more random achievements in gta iv or halo 3? I can envision something like "Board and capture an enemy ship after destroying its main mast, killing all on-deck personnel, and disabling its rudder, on a Sunday." I'd like to have some crazy specific achievements, even if they aren't this weird.

"...angry men must also be strong, if they would achieve their purpose."
-Livy
jomas
Legionary
posted 19 November 2008 18:22 EDT (US)     229 / 254       
also, no that i've read up some more on the 18th century
could canada make its own faction?
canada wasnt exactly independant in the 18th century, but the united states wasnt either(until the early 19th century were they truly independant)

the canadian forces could be made up of french/british settlers and aboriganal's, which was what the canadian militia was made up of at the time
it wouldnt be a strong starting faction, but it could start out with an aliance with britian and france

the reason why i thought about it is because in one of the trailers it showed native american warriors.
so canada is a possibility
Roman Warlord
Legionary
posted 19 November 2008 18:51 EDT (US)     230 / 254       
To start with aboriganal's are from australia.....

And Canada is a British teritory, though it could always rebel at some point I suppose. Doubt it would be a playable starting faction, more likly to be an emerging rebel.
jomas
Legionary
posted 19 November 2008 18:53 EDT (US)     231 / 254       
at the start of the 18th century america was british territory as well
so if the 18 colonies are in the game
theres a chance canada is as well
BurningSushi460
Scenario Reviewer
posted 25 November 2008 00:38 EDT (US)     232 / 254       
I wonder if there would be a sea-to-land esque invasion? You know, galleons firing away at the enemy while troops vacate the ships via rowboats across the perilous shores.
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 25 November 2008 00:55 EDT (US)     233 / 254       
:O

Good idea there sir... I think that could possibly be a feature.. Dang that would be sick.
Andalus
Legionary
posted 25 November 2008 08:18 EDT (US)     234 / 254       
I expect it may be possible, but I doubt you would control the actual landing. More likely there would be an event video showing it, and then you are handed control of the troops onshore.
To start with aboriganal's are from australia.....
In fact, aboriginal is a term that can be used for any indegenous population, so it is perfectly alright to call native Americans aboriginals.
Collecian
Legionary
posted 25 November 2008 17:38 EDT (US)     235 / 254       
I wonder for the Catholic Nations, if the Pope and Papal States will play any part like they did in Medieval 2? I kinda doubt it, but it something to think of how religon might play out in the game.

"I expect to pass through this world but once ;
Any good, therefore, that I can do ,
or any kindness I can show to any fellow creature,
let me do it now ; Let me not defer or neglect it ,
for I shall not pass this way again."

[This message has been edited by Collecian (edited 11-25-2008 @ 05:39 PM).]

jomas
Legionary
posted 25 November 2008 17:44 EDT (US)     236 / 254       
Collecian
i dont think there will be any papal states or anything like it
it was said that religeon will play a far less role in the game
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 25 November 2008 19:03 EDT (US)     237 / 254       
Religion was worthless in MTW2 as well.. all it did was just give you more hastle with the pope.
Andalus
Legionary
posted 26 November 2008 17:09 EDT (US)     238 / 254       
You know what I've just realised? With the 50 plus factions in ETW, it may be possible to finally see a Roman mod that fully represents the ancient world and it's peoples. Something like this (Best I could find).
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 26 November 2008 18:01 EDT (US)     239 / 254       
Ah, yes you very well could.. i don't know why you would want another RTW mod though.. (other than 50+ factions)

[This message has been edited by Daelon (edited 11-26-2008 @ 06:02 PM).]

Andalus
Legionary
posted 26 November 2008 18:17 EDT (US)     240 / 254       
other than 50+ factions
For this precise reason, of course! Need we more? I expect there will be a plethora of mods for ETW anyway.
Andalus
Legionary
posted 30 November 2008 12:23 EDT (US)     241 / 254       
I have just discovered there is in fact such a mod already in production! It is called Gladiis Hastisque Contra Barbaros.

Only 23 factions planned at the moment, but that is still more than the original RTW. I'm guessing they're playing safe, so they don't overstep the mark.
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 30 November 2008 15:36 EDT (US)     242 / 254       
In fact, aboriginal is a term that can be used for any indegenous population, so it is perfectly alright to call native Americans aboriginals.
Isn't the 'abor' bit just meaning 'south'? so the term would be something like 'people from the south'

On Daelon's point, I always thought it'd be nice if the game kept track of a stupid amount of data so that you could have some soldiers being natural better / stronger than others - so you could end up with a quite good group of chaps ending up like sharpe and swinging battles etc. No idea if you'd ever notice it happening enough to make it worthwhile though
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 30 November 2008 16:20 EDT (US)     243 / 254       
Exactly -

A simple feature just to train soldiers, outside of being enlisted men, could perhaps change the "upgrades" function in the previous total war. Or keep the upgrades and implement a training function to just make the game a complete beast.
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 01 December 2008 08:22 EDT (US)     244 / 254       
The trick with optional levels of training is how to implement the blighter - to make any sense it'd have to be on a regional, possibly even a unit by unit basis. For example, in a time of peace (if that's ever plausible in the game) you may want to keep up the training of a core of the army stationed in 'dangerous' places, but to cut back on training of most troops in other areas - one step off of disbanding armies that you don't need.

The sort of game I'd love to see would be to have a huge level of complexity, but have almost all of it capable of being reasonably run by the AI. So if you want to totally micromange something, be it troop training or something economical, you can get down and dirty with it, but there's not a total disadvantage by ignoring it. It probably wouldnt sell well, or be a very good feature of a game - but I like the principle...

For example with the training, the way that could be done would be to have a faction wide slider to set training rates, which would let the AI then allocate the training level for each region/unit, but if you wanted then you can set rates for each area or for each unit if you want to go overboard. Similarly, training couldn't be purely something that you pay more to do lots of - since unless you're talking about a militia the troops would be full time so the only extra cost would be munitions and transport etc - but excess training with no action could lead to discontent if the soldiers aren't well paid enough - would that lead to needing to set pay levels too? Messy, but interesting if it's all done sensibly rather than just by a rambling thought train like this one.

Like the comment I made in some other Empires thread somewhere on research - the more things can look realistic rather than "invent the steam engine; cost = 10 years 10k" the better as far as I can see - so long as it doesn't become too annoying to play.
Gallowglass
Legionary
posted 01 December 2008 14:14 EDT (US)     245 / 254       

It doesn't mean south. The Picts are sometimes referred to as 'the aborigines' and if you go west or east of Fortriu you'll be in Alaska.

It probably would be worthwhile, SwampRat. It would not only make the game real - it would make it alive. That way luck also plays a part in the battles, and it would mean that conclusions are not obvious.

------m------m------
(o o)
(~)

Monkey beats bunny. Please put Monkey in your signature to prevent the rise of bunny.
m0n|<3yz r 2 pwn n00b
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 01 December 2008 16:02 EDT (US)     246 / 254       
Ahh fair enough - Wiki told me where I'd gone wrong - I'd remembered the aurora aborealis, rather than the aurora borealis and thought that was the southern one (which is aurora australis or something similar). Just trying to show that I wasn't entirely off my rocker - just confused about which thing down that way was called after something meaning south...
jomas
Legionary
posted 01 December 2008 17:28 EDT (US)     247 / 254       
the reason why is said aboriginal is because i am from canada
and we call native americans either native americans or aboriginals, both seem fine to them and prefer being called either of the two
so in my opinion it is also a term for any northern natives
Alexander332 II
Legionary
posted 01 December 2008 20:14 EDT (US)     248 / 254       
vvvvvvvvvvvmy edits didnt workvvvvvvvvvvv

[This message has been edited by Alexander332 II (edited 12-01-2008 @ 08:20 PM).]

Alexander332 II
Legionary
posted 01 December 2008 20:17 EDT (US)     249 / 254       
vvvvvvvvvvvmy edits didnt workvvvvvvvvvvv

[This message has been edited by Alexander332 II (edited 12-01-2008 @ 08:20 PM).]

Alexander332 II
Legionary
posted 01 December 2008 20:19 EDT (US)     250 / 254       
A quick Latin rundown of aborigines:

The 'a' in the word is not the full prefix. If it were, than it would suggest (probably in 'au' form) a prefix meaning 'south.'

The word is ab + origines. The Latin word (or sometimes prefix) 'ab' means 'from' just as 'ex' does. Origines comes from origo, originis, a Latin noun meaning 'beginning'.

And so, the word aboriginal is an adjective meaning 'from the beginning'; and the word aborigines literally means 'men from the beginning.'

Edit: Pretty much an extrapolation of Swamprat's post.
« Previous Page  1 ··· 8 9 10 11  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames